SynthesisBMJ open2026
Prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication prescribing, inappropriate medication use, prescription omission and drug interactions among older adults in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), potential prescription omission (PPO), potentially harmful drug-drug interactions (PDDI) and identify associated factors among older Ethiopians.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCE: We searched PubMed, HINARI, Scopus and Web of Science databases to identify eligible studies published up to 31 October 2025. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies reported the prevalence of PIP, PIM, PPO and PDDI among older adults from any healthcare settings were screened. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The quality and risk of bias of the studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Hoy risk of bias tool, respectively, while the certainty of evidence of outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation based on Cochrane recommendations. We used a random-effects model for analyses to estimate the pooled prevalence and associated factors. All data analyses were done using Stata V.17 software. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The national prevalence of PIP, PIM, PPO and PDDI was estimated as main outcomes. Variations were estimated based on regions, age groups, outcome evaluation tool, disease type and healthcare setting.
resultsThe review included 25 studies (n=5662 participants) for PIP or PIM, 14 studies (n=2706 participants) for PDDI and 6 studies (n=1342 participants) for PPO. The pooled prevalence estimate was 41% (95% CI 33% to 48%), I CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This review found a high prevalence of PIP, PIM, PDDI and PPO among older adults in Ethiopia, with notable heterogeneity across regions. Polypharmacy was associated with PIP, PIM and PDDI, while hypertension showed association with PIP. Despite generally good study quality, the certainty of evidence was low for the included studies due to the cross-sectional design nature, with high heterogeneity. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. This study indicates a high burden of inappropriate medication prescribing and its associated factors, underscoring the importance of further robust studies to clarify prescribing practices and associated factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024556744.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.